B/S were the better team, no doubt in my eyes. But they made several mistakes here and there and that effected their overall performance. After they skated, S/P had to skate perfectly in order to beat them. The problem is that S/P were actually perfect in their delivery of the program that night and still lost. That was anticlimatic at best. IMHO S/P deserved the gold based on their flawless performance under such pression. That doesn't mean they were the better team. But they performed better that night.

Please return the dead horse to its grave to rest in peace. The season has started, there is enough skating to discuss and no reason to resort to this.

As for the actual topic...Do: Tell viewers a bit about the skaters and the program before it begins, point out key elements during the program, discuss levels, scoring, etc. during the replays as we're waiting for the marks. In short: be informative but don't talk over the performance. And share your opinions and expertise - I like announcers with a point of view - but try to be unbiased as possible, or at least acknowledge your bias if you can't. Please don't: Talk over the program, engage in blatant homerism, whine about how 6.0 was better while complaining that math is hard, call 13 year olds sexy.

The good: Chris Howatch from Eurosport generally does well, though the Eurosport guys seem to have some opinions and comments in recent years. I also like the Youtube videos from the Spanish channel, I don't know how good the commentary is but there doesn't seem to be an excessive amount of it, and what little I can pick out sounds to the point.
The bad: Italian and French broadcasters who won't shut up; some of the very biased American announcers.

I think Scott and Sandra got caught up in the emotions of the moment, and then proceeded to fan the flames for everyone else. I don't know whether it was good or bad. They certainly had seen many figure skating contests before in their lives which had not gone the way they expected.

For that matter, I still can't see why the Salt Lake City thing is harped on, even today, as being the the atom bomb that blew up figure skating. Nothing happened in 2002 that hadn't been going on since 1902. Everyone has always known that the judging is sometimes suspect, whether it is the Austrian world champion refusing to skate in Sweden against Ulrich Salchow because he can't get a fair shake, or Sonia Henie's father physically threatening the judges, or the North American Championship being cancelled because both the U.S. and Canada thought the judges for the other side were cheating, or the entire Russian complement of judges being banned from all events for a year in the 1980s because of systematic bias.

Yet when a French judge apparently collaborates with other judges on the panel, well, we are SHOCKED. Just shocked! Bring on anonymous judging quick!

I think Scott and Sandra got caught up in the emotions of the moment, and then proceeded to fan the flames for everyone else. I don't know whether it was good or bad. They certainly had seen many figure skating contests before in their lives which had not gone the way they expected.

It was bad because it was bias regardless whether the result would be later altered or not.

Originally Posted by Mathman

For that matter, I still can't see why the Salt Lake City thing is harped on, even today, as being the the atom bomb that blew up figure skating. Nothing happened in 2002 that hadn't been going on since 1902. Everyone has always known that the judging is sometimes suspect, whether it is the Austrian world champion refusing to skate in Sweden against Ulrich Salchow because he can't get a fair shake, or Sonia Henie's father physically threatening the judges, or the North American Championship being cancelled because both the U.S. and Canada thought the judges for the other side were cheating, or the entire Russian complement of judges being banned from all events for a year in the 1980s because of systematic bias.

Yet when a French judge apparently collaborates with other judges on the panel, well, we are SHOCKED. Just shocked! Bring on anonymous judging quick!

I can't see why the SLC thing is worse than all other under the table things going on before either - even though I don't know much about the previous under the table things but I've suspected that much. I think the French judge was sooooo stupid! Either you do it but don't say it, or you say it but don't do it. You don't do it and say it. Of course, preferably say it but don't do it, or just don't say it and don't do it.

But it surely lead up to a positive outcome - to change the judging system. So this should be praised as of 2010 Lysacek's quadless Olympic win.

It was bad because it was bias regardless whether the result would be later altered or not.

I can't see why the SLC thing is worse than all other under the table things going on before either - even though I don't know much about the previous under the table things but I've suspected that much. I think the French judge was sooooo stupid! Either you do it but not say it, or you say it but not do it. You don't do it and say it. Of course, preferably say it but not do it, or just don't say it and don't do it.

But it surely lead up to a positive outcome - to change the judging system. So this should be praised as of 2010 Lysacek's quadless Olympic win.

I know this is off-topic but I think that the 2002 scandal was so positive for figure skating: it forced everyone to admit that most of the judges were biased and it forced the ISU to change the judging system, and this is something for which I will be always grateful to Le Gogne! (we should maybe create a thread about the IJS?)

I know this is off-topic but I think that the 2002 scandal was so positive for figure skating: it forced everyone to admit that most of the judges were biased and it forced the ISU to change the judging system, and this is something for which I will be always grateful to Le Gogne! (we should maybe create a thread about the IJS?)

As Dick Button points out - does changing the system but keeping the same rascals in charge of ISU, the federations as well as most the judges make any difference?

It seems like a giant leap of faith to believe so.

Back to announcers since someone brought up Evan - after Plushy finished Scott said, "this is gonna be close."

I listened to the Brit EuroSport clip the other day and their announcer said something like, "he did it, Plushenko won."

I don't think she was stupid. I think she was emotionally fragile and overwrought. She had been solicited and badgered by both the Canadian and Russian contingents for months leading up to the competition. Her own federation president was in the mix, as well as her best personal friend in skating, a Russian official and judge. When she was rushed at by Sally Stapleford in the hotel lobby immediately afterward she broke down in tears. She later said that she truly believed that Berezhnaya and Sikharudlidze gave the better performance, but when confronted by the "irate mob" she ended up not knowing what she truly believed.

By the way, here is a reference to the French judge thing from the 2012 summer Olympics, about boxing.

I don't think she was stupid. I think she was emotionally fragile and overwrought. She had been solicited and badgered by both the Canadian and Russian contingents for months leading up to the competition. Her own federation president was in the mix, as well as her best personal friend in skating, a Russian official and judge. When she was rushed at by Sally Stapleford in the hotel lobby immediately afterward she broke down in tears. She later said that she truly believed that Berezhnaya and Sikharudlidze gave the better performance, but when confronted by the "irate mob" she ended up not knowing what she truly believed.

I sympathize her. So that has proved my belief - the second gold medal shouldn't have given out. And 6.0 was too vague to distinguish which was the correct judgement.

I don't think she was stupid. I think she was emotionally fragile and overwrought. Her own federation president was in the mix, as well as her best personal friend in skating, a Russian official and judge. When she was rushed at by Sally Stapleford in the hotel lobby immediately afterward she broke down in tears. She later said that she truly believed that Berezhnaya and Sikharudlidze gave the better performance, but when confronted by the "irate mob" she ended up not knowing what she truly believed.

]

Do you think ISU should be using a judge who is admittely "fragile and overwrought" at the Olympics - the biggest and most important skating event where public interest is far and away the highest?

Unless ISU is run by total idiots of course they would never use an emotionally unstable judge at their biggest event.

Sports like babseball, footbal and basketball make it clear the refs at the playoffs and championships are hand-picked based on their record of excellence.

I sympathize her. So that has proved my believe - the second gold medal shouldn't have given out. And 6.0 was too vague to distinguish which was the correct judgement.

Yes, 6.0 was a vague system, now you can really understand which marks each judge gives in every single element and for the PCS, it's clear but (of course) not perfect! And (as I pointed out in another thread) it brought us a lot of improvement in the technical side: better step sequences, better spins (especially in the Men's event), better jumps quality, and it made Ice Dancing clear and understandable! In fact, Ice Dancing before the IJS was simply 90% subjective! (Ok, I'll stop talking about the IJS system here... )

Back to announcers since someone brought up Evan - after Plushy finished Scott said, "this is gonna be close."

Scott knew better in 02 and said as much the day after the pairs event. Bob Costas wanted to push the cold war agenda and Scott basically said none of that mattered, he did a poor job. So it's not surprising that - here we are again, N America vs those "eville" russians and he is the one on the mic. He left it up to the judges and celebrated afterwards...

me personally? I thought Plush had it too because I felt Evan held back in the presentation (something Plush never does) and I thought they'd give Plush the nod... I freaked when I found out I was wrong (woke the house up too... whoops)

Yes, 6.0 was a vague system, now you can really understand which marks each judge gives in every single element and for the PCS, it's clear but (of course) not perfect! And (as I pointed out in another thread) it brought us a lot of improvement in the technical side: better step sequences, better spins (especially in the Men's event), better jumps quality, and it made Ice Dancing clear and understandable! In fact, Ice Dancing before the IJS was simply 90% subjective! (Ok, I'll stop talking about the IJS system here... )

If 6.0 was so vague atleast a viewer understood immediately why a skater won.

If 6.0 had judged Adelina and Katelyn I would have seen immediately that they were tied ...say at 5.7's across the board for presentation.
The tech scores would have shown Kaetlyn with a lead....maybe 5.7 to 5.5.

I would have seen right away where Kaetlyn won and where Adelina lost. It took me quite a while to find this info this morning.

I also think the PCS are wrong and it looks like one judge filled in all the scores.

If I am to believe there is real and honest judging going on I don't expect to see such close agreement - but some semblance of human judgement involved.

Anyway - I did try to learn more about the CoP this morning but did not come away as satisfied as others.
Maybe it's because I don't automatically believe something just because I read it on the internet